Neural organization raises, in an especially clear way, a major problem confronting contemporary cognitive science. The problem (the 'big issue' of my title) is: What is the relation between the strategies used to solve basic problems of perception and action and those used to solve more abstract or 'cognitive' problems? Is there a smooth, incremental route from what Arbib et al. call 'instinctual schemas' to higher-level kinds of cognitive prowess? I argue that, despite some suggestive comments, Arbib et al. do not resolve this issue.